| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: init_sequence spill to hash table |
| Date: | 2013-11-14 14:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20131114144938.GB7522@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-11-14 09:47:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-11-14 09:23:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We most certainly *do* discard entries, if they're not open when a cache
> >> flush event comes along.
>
> > What I was aiming at is that we don't discard them because of a limited
> > cache size. I don't think it means much that we flush the entry when
> > it's changed but not referenced.
>
> Well, I don't want non-user-significant events (such as an sinval queue
> overrun) causing sequence state to get discarded. We would get bug
> reports about lost sequence values.
But we can easily do as you suggest and simply retain the entry in that
case. I am just not seeing the memory overhead argument as counting much
since we don't protect against it in normal operation.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-14 14:52:11 | Somebody broke \d on indexes |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2013-11-14 14:47:47 | Re: [PATCH] ecpg: Split off mmfatal() from mmerror() |